This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.
Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.
STATES OF JERSEY
r
ISLAND PLAN 2002: AMENDMENT TO POLICY H8 (HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BUILT-UP AREA) (P.90/2005) – COMMENTS
Presented to the States on 10th May 2005
by the Environment and Public Services Committee
STATES GREFFE
COMMENTS
The Environment and Public Services Committee, despite the justification provided in Deputy Baudains' report, fails to see what possible consequence there is in adopting parts (a) and (b) of the Proposition.
As far as (a) is concerned, whether the preamble to Policy H8 of the Plan is expressed in the terms of the approved Plan, or in the alternative terms proposed in this Proposition, the effect on how the Committee considers an application is exactly the same. Any proposal submitted for residential development in the Built-Up Area will still need to satisfy the 11 criteria specified in Policy H8.
The policy as currently drafted is positively worded: "proposals will normally be permitted provided that ". The Deputy 's wording: "proposals . will not be permitted unless " has exactly the same effect. Policy H8 as currently drafted, and as would be drafted if the Deputy 's Proposition is approved, states unequivocally that "proposals which do not satisfy these criteria will not normally be permitted".
Either way, the Committee will be required to exercise its judgement on whether the criteria are met for any application submitted to it within the Built-Up Area, and for that reason there is no purpose in agreeing to this change of wording.
In his report, Deputy Baudains makes a broad statement regarding developments in St. Clement and St. Pete "which clearly contravene a number of criteria contained in those policies". However, he provides no evidence to support this statement. In reality, the Deputy simply disagrees with the judgement made by the various Committees on applications approved since the Island Plan was adopted in July 2002.
As far as part (b) of the Proposition is concerned, members of the Committee already have a copy of the Island Plan, summaries of the frequently used Island Plan policies and the criteria contained within them (a copy of which is attached), and receive for each application, in the officers' reports, an analysis of the applicability of those policies relevant to its consideration, an evaluation of how a proposal is affected by those policies, and a recommendation. Thus the members have all the information they need to assist them in exercising their judgement. Since September 2004, the officer reports are publicly available, on request, under the Freedom of Information Code.
When the Planning and Building Law 2002 is introduced, hopefully later this year, there is a requirement that those parts of the Committee's (and the Planning Sub-Committee's) meetings are held in public, and accordingly the public will be able to observe at first hand how the Island Plan policies are taken into account and considered carefully when application decisions are made.
Accordingly, the Committee sees no purpose in the States debating Proposition (b) as this already reflects the current procedures.